And though we don’t really discuss it, the Democratic Party is a girl.

...by which the author means "not allowed to express rage, no matter how rationally justified, for fear of being ridiculed for weakness."

I wish this were true. The real situation is more complex, because there are a lot of different factions within any party -- especially one that isn't oriented towards uniformity and power-concentration like the Republicans.

The Democratic leadership is more like the younger brother whose older brother is abusive and domineering (and can get away with expressions of outrage because he has a lot of bully-friends who will beat up anyone who makes fun of him), and they see this as ultimately the only way to be cool -- but most of the time, they're too afraid to do it, so instead they find other smaller kids to marginalize in order to show how tough they are.

Democratic whistleblowers like Ford and Snowden (and countless others) are at best left to fend for themselves by the Dem leadership and at worst are actively opposed because they want to destroy concentrations of unaccountable power, while the Dem leadership just wants to take that unaccountable power for itself. Little brother wants to become big brother, not fight him. Little brother thinks whistleblowers and dissenters are girls and sissies and should just shut up and learn their place.

...and the rest of us tend to fall into two camps: either Dem party loyalists who can't see beyond the (true) fact that the Dems are orders of magnitude better than the Republicans, and will fight anyone in the other camp -- which sees that the Dems should be fighting for systemic reform rather than just fighting to be on top within that system, and who will refuse to fall in line behind any candidate who will just perpetuate that system, no matter how much more "politically feasible" they may be than a candidate who will at least try to reform it, because what's the point of supporting "meet the new boss, slightly better than but basically the same as the old boss"?

If the Dems are better than the Republicans, it's only because we refuse to accept that we're just competing with the Republicans for the same goal. The more the Dem leadership refuses to acknowledge this, refuses to support anger and rage against systemic injustice, the more they do become exactly like the Republicans and the less we can be bothered to support them.

... Because they aren't approving of mere anger, they are approving of malice. It was as naked and On display as Trump during the campaign.

They are thrilled and excited at letting loose their worst instincts in a mutual jerk off hate session against the out group. A potential supreme court justice promised to abuse his office to get revenge over slights. Everybody saw this. There is no possible way to handwaive this away, unless you agree. Anger can be pure. Anger can be righteous. This was a glorification in cruelty, lies, breaking the institution for the in group. Complete Malice.

@Scott McCoy - I'm with @Woozle Hypertwin on this one. Dude let his anger and privilege out for everybody to see. If you didn't watch the hearings, you can use google to find them, especially the relevant bits. If you haven't already educated yourself, and/or seem the clips, it's not incumbent on us to educate you. Think. For. Yourself.

This is how he acts under scrutiny, without full power. You should believe people in power when they openly announce their bad intentions. They are both Telling the Truth, and Vice Signaling to the worst people to gain their support.

No , @ScottMcCoy it wasn't just "a rant". It was a threat, it constitutes an impeachable offense in its own , as sworn legal testimony to abuse a public office of trust.

The reasons he. Should , nay MUST be impeached are laid out rather logically in a recent sober Op Ed by a judge ( perhaps )coincidentally named Brett Kavanough.

Mr Kavanough lays out an impressive logical list of reasons why that threatening jackass should never be let near a position of power.

I've given some thought the OP question. I have a surprising counter intuitive answer.

Feminism , or rather Feminism+ Patriarchy .

Every thing about Ks diatribe would be widely unacceptable decades ago. Men weren't allowed to publicly display strong emotions . Ed muskie political campaign we dead after a glisten on his cheek.

Howard Dean gave a weak Cheer and was ridiculed out of the campaign.

So what's going on? I think Feminism has widened what emotions men are allowed to display in public... But the catch is Not All Men. These new rights are filtered through Hierachy and Old Boy Networks. and Kavanough has been cocooned and enmeshed in these his entire life.

I can't even imagine Obama being a!lowed to break into tears during Congressional testimony over "doing Reps" with the boys. And Calendars. It just beggars belief.

I don't disagree with Feminism. Not that male emotional expression should be more human.

But at the same time I do have stricter standards for men, ( and authority figures ) and Kavanough pissed all over them. This brings to mind why these standards even exist.

The last time I saw a public figure this ridiculous was Glenn Beck circa 2009 in full fascist histrionic mode.

I n a way it's the ultimate symbol of public power. I.e. 'Your public decency standards have no hold on me. I can't over control myself yet I rule you. '.

But maybe I'm wrong and it's a mere coincidence. Maybe the far right and leaders of masculine power structur es a always had exemptions on the strictures they place on other men and women.

It would really take a sociological analysis to see which is true.

But I don't think Kavanough would be allowed his High School Jock exemptions ( to the Professional emotional regulation standards applied to Other Men and To Women ) if some of the benefits of Feminism didn't accrue to men. YMMV .

@Scott McCoy - I’m with @Woozle Hypertwin Hypertwin on this one. Dude let his anger and privilege out for everybody to see. If you didn’t watch the hearings, you can use google to find them, especially the relevant bits. If you haven’t already educated yourself, and/or seem the clips, it’s not incumbent on us to educate you. Think. For. Yourself.

No, I won't let you off the hook with this one. I wanna hear what exactly you interpreted as angry and privileged. It's obvious not everybody "saw" it.